A prisoner convicted of a number of crimes, including arson, was a public employee, and entitled to a state pension, which his wife was collecting under a power of attorney. A lawsuit was filed seeking to have the pension payments diverted to his inmate account under the "Son of Sam Law," so that they could be frozen and made available to satisfy any judgment his victims might later obtain in lawsuits. New York's highest court declined to uphold an order for the diverting of the payments, since the plaintiff in the lawsuit failed to properly preserve the argument that the Son of Sam Law superseded a state statute that provides that pensions are not subject to attachment or garnishment. In the Matter of New York State Office of Victim Services v. Raucci, #6, 2013 N.Y. Lexis 130, 2013 NY Slip Op 01018.
     While convicted felons in Tennessee who finished their sentences and satisfied the conditions of their supervised release could ordinarily have applied for the restoration of their voting rights, they were ineligible to do so when they owed either past-due child support payments or crime victim restitution payments. This ineligibility did not violate their equal protection rights since there is no fundamental right for felons to vote. A number of other related claims were also rejected. Johnson v. Bredesen, Case No. 3:08cv0187, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 80932 (M.D. Tenn.).    
     A federal appeals court rejected a prisoners claim that he was coerced into participation in the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP) or that doing so violated his constitutional right to due process. The prisoner could have refused to participate without being disciplined for his actions, so that a case worker and a counselor, in discussing the IFRP program with him, and encouraging him to sign a contract to participate, did not engage in coercion. Further, to the extent that the prisoner sought to challenge restitution ordered by the trial court in his criminal case, he could not do so in a federal civil rights lawsuit, since it was part of his criminal sentence which had not been set aside or modified. Duronio v. B.O.P. Director Gonzales, No. 08-2077, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 19455 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) did not act improperly in encouraging voluntary payments in excess of those required under court judgments for restitution to the victims of crime, even if it conditioned the receipt of certain privileges during incarceration on a prisoner's participation in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP). The court rejected challenges to victim restitution payments schedules asserted by prisoners participating in the IFRP. U.S. v. Lemoine, No. 06-50663, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 21189 (9th Cir.).
     Kansas prisoner who had uncollected disciplinary restitution from prior incarceration was subject to amended statute allowing prison officials to collect remaining amount from his inmate account upon his subsequent reincarceration on other offenses. Application of statute to prisoner did not amount to an unconstitutional retroactive enhancement of his punishment under the "ex post facto" clause of the Constitution. Tonge v. Werholtz, No. 93,329, 109 P.3d 1140 (Kan. 2005). [N/R]
     California prisoner did not state a claim against the Director of the Department of Corrections for taking his property without due process of law based on deductions of funds from his prison account to pay court-ordered restitution. Abney v. Alameida, No. CIV.02CV2136-BEN PCL, 334 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (S.D. Cal. 2004). [N/R]
     Colorado Restitution Act, C.R.S.A. Sec. 16-18.5-106, allowed state correctional officials to withhold funds from prisoner's account to pay victim compensation costs, victim assistance surcharges imposed as part of sentence for sexual assault, and court costs, even though the sentence was imposed before the effective date of the statute, since it stated that it applied to all "delinquencies of orders" existing on or after the effective date. Court finds no ex post factor violation. People of the State of Colorado v. Lowe, #01CA1876, 60 P.3d 753 (Colo. App. 2002). [N/R]
     California Supreme Court strikes down state's "Son of Sam" law as violating the First Amendment. New York jury, under revised "Son of Sam" law, awards $100 million against convicted killer of police officer, stopping payment of $237,500 civil rights judgment award to prisoner in prison discipline case; those funds may go to slain officer's family. Keenan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. S080284, 27 Cal. 4th 413, 40 P.3d 718 (2002); Byrne v. McClary, No. 12614/01 (Nassau Co., N.Y. Sup. Ct.), reported in The National Law Journal, p. A4, March 4, 2002. [2002 JB May]
     299:163 Award of $10 in damages to prisoner for violation of his religious right to receive a pork-free diet could be set off against his liability to the county for costs arising out of the same lawsuit; federal court does not reach restitution issue. Rinaldo v. Corbett, No. 99-10801, 256 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2001).
     243:43 Iowa correctional facility could impose, in disciplinary proceeding, restitution of full amount of injured officer's medical expenses and lost wages, including portion officer received as workers' compensation benefits; prisoner who assaulted officer was entitled, however, to hearing to challenge amount of expenses. Mathis v. State of Iowa, 545 N.W.2d 548 (Iowa 1996).
     Statute requiring inmate to pay restitution for damages to state property and for the cost of medical attention required because of his act of self-mutilation was constitutional. Longmire v. Guste, 921 F.2d 620 (5th Cir. 1991).